fred stripped of his knighthood
Discussion
Sorry but I have no sympathy with him or this politics of envy crap. I argued yesterday to one of our resident Commies that Fred's punishment was perpetual humiliation and was told that he hadnt been humiliated at all and it was irrelevent. Well, it aint now. This is how you punish.
And yes to the OP. Its called consequences. Life sucks, deal with it.
And yes to the OP. Its called consequences. Life sucks, deal with it.
stichill99 said:
Funny that when RBS kept anouncing record profits prior to the bust you didnt hear the shareholders saying Calm down Fred lets get back to traditional lending and give us a smaller dividend. Shareholders were as greedy as the bosses when the money was rolling in. The first time as a young lad when I bought shares the bank manager told me Shares can come down just as easily as they can go up.
It really is quite extraordinary that people can't see into the future, isn't it.
DSM2 said:
Can you give one good reason why he would deserve to keep it?
He was guilty of far more than simply making bad business decisions.
really what was he gulity of that was criminal which was the previous criteria for withdrawing a knighthood?He was guilty of far more than simply making bad business decisions.
no he shouldnt have been given it but if you start stripping people of knighthoods where does it end - will they review people each year??
He was knighted for services to banking. I think there's a pretty good case to say that in the end his services to banking weren't all that positive.
He bet the farm, and for 6 years it worked. In the 7th year the bet went against him and he paid the price. I have little sympathy.
Incidentally, John Varley is dodged one almighty bullet.
He bet the farm, and for 6 years it worked. In the 7th year the bet went against him and he paid the price. I have little sympathy.
Incidentally, John Varley is dodged one almighty bullet.
petemurphy said:
really what was he gulity of that was criminal which was the previous criteria for withdrawing a knighthood?
no he shouldnt have been given it but if you start stripping people of knighthoods where does it end - will they review people each year??
I'd liken it to being given a Knighthood for services to children only for it to emerge that you've secretly been kiddie-fiddling. Admittedly perhaps not the best analogy but the basic principle is, I think, sound, which is that if you're found out to be a bit of a fraud there has to be a mechanism by which you can have the honour revoked.no he shouldnt have been given it but if you start stripping people of knighthoods where does it end - will they review people each year??
I do agree that it's a little iffy when you stop at one, and perhaps a few more questions should be asked about the criteria that decided he deserved a knighthood.
This is exactly why they should stop giving out "comes with the job" knighthoods. The issue is that people are being awarded knighthood on position as opposed to objective merit - they've become utterly devalued. He won't be the last person who gets an honour they never deserved, nor will he be the last to be stripped of said honour when the poo hits the fan.
MX7 said:
stichill99 said:
Funny that when RBS kept anouncing record profits prior to the bust you didnt hear the shareholders saying Calm down Fred lets get back to traditional lending and give us a smaller dividend. Shareholders were as greedy as the bosses when the money was rolling in. The first time as a young lad when I bought shares the bank manager told me Shares can come down just as easily as they can go up.
It really is quite extraordinary that people can't see into the future, isn't it.Managers asked the people below them for their figures. The figures were produced, but the managers would reject the figures if they thought the board wouldn't like them.
MX7 said:
Willy Nilly said:
Had he not surrounded himself with yes-men some body might have put it too him to so a bit steady.
Am I the only one?Goodwin surrounded himself with Yes-men. Anyone that disagreed with him didn't get much in the way of career progression.
Had he had people on the board that stood up to him, they might have suggested to the board that the path they were taking was not an ideal one. Maybe even to slow down on the big expansion stuff and keep to what they know.
Willy Nilly said:
sorry, my bad.
Goodwin surrounded himself with Yes-men. Anyone that disagreed with him didn't get much in the way of career progression.
Had he had people on the board that stood up to him, they might have suggested to the board that the path they were taking was not an ideal one. Maybe even to slow down on the big expansion stuff and keep to what they know.
People do that all the time. Sometimes they can do it throughout their whole career, other times they are exposed, but you'd need a crystal ball to know which way it'll go.Goodwin surrounded himself with Yes-men. Anyone that disagreed with him didn't get much in the way of career progression.
Had he had people on the board that stood up to him, they might have suggested to the board that the path they were taking was not an ideal one. Maybe even to slow down on the big expansion stuff and keep to what they know.
MX7 said:
stichill99 said:
Funny that when RBS kept anouncing record profits prior to the bust you didnt hear the shareholders saying Calm down Fred lets get back to traditional lending and give us a smaller dividend. Shareholders were as greedy as the bosses when the money was rolling in. The first time as a young lad when I bought shares the bank manager told me Shares can come down just as easily as they can go up.
It really is quite extraordinary that people can't see into the future, isn't it.In July 2008 he tapped up RBS shareholders for £10bn by way of a rights issue, at the time the biggest rights issue in UK corporate history.
The rights issue was for 200p a share. A massive rights issue and a massive de-valuation of the share capital at the time.
Now think about it.
The rights issue was in July 2008. The UK was already in recession, Bear Sterns, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, Icesave and Northern Rock had already gone belly up.
And then in October 2008, RBS effectively became bankrupt. Yes, in 3 months he LOST that entire £10bn. He lost it because he had an ego bigger than the debt he was creating within the company he was running.
Now you tell me, whether in July 2008, Fred Goodwin had absolutely no idea or even concern of what might happen just 3 months later.
You and I may not have forecast it, but I'm not being paid £millions to run a huge bank.
He gambled and he lost. And worse still, he continued to gamble, throwing good money after bad.
He is scum.
And you know what's really scary. He is not only a multi-millionaire, but the company he entirely f
ked is still (by way of the pension scheme) paying him more than half a million a year.Yet Stephen Hester (who most analysts think is doing a good job) is harassed about his pay.
oyster said:
Except this man couldn't see beyond the end of his own (very greedy) nose.
In July 2008 he tapped up RBS shareholders for £10bn by way of a rights issue, at the time the biggest rights issue in UK corporate history.
The rights issue was for 200p a share. A massive rights issue and a massive de-valuation of the share capital at the time.
Now think about it.
The rights issue was in July 2008. The UK was already in recession, Bear Sterns, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, Icesave and Northern Rock had already gone belly up.
And then in October 2008, RBS effectively became bankrupt. Yes, in 3 months he LOST that entire £10bn. He lost it because he had an ego bigger than the debt he was creating within the company he was running.
Now you tell me, whether in July 2008, Fred Goodwin had absolutely no idea or even concern of what might happen just 3 months later.
You and I may not have forecast it, but I'm not being paid £millions to run a huge bank.
He gambled and he lost. And worse still, he continued to gamble, throwing good money after bad.
He is scum.
And you know what's really scary. He is not only a multi-millionaire, but the company he entirely fked is still (by way of the pension scheme) paying him more than half a million a year.
Yet Stephen Hester (who most analysts think is doing a good job) is harassed about his pay.
How is he scum?In July 2008 he tapped up RBS shareholders for £10bn by way of a rights issue, at the time the biggest rights issue in UK corporate history.
The rights issue was for 200p a share. A massive rights issue and a massive de-valuation of the share capital at the time.
Now think about it.
The rights issue was in July 2008. The UK was already in recession, Bear Sterns, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, Icesave and Northern Rock had already gone belly up.
And then in October 2008, RBS effectively became bankrupt. Yes, in 3 months he LOST that entire £10bn. He lost it because he had an ego bigger than the debt he was creating within the company he was running.
Now you tell me, whether in July 2008, Fred Goodwin had absolutely no idea or even concern of what might happen just 3 months later.
You and I may not have forecast it, but I'm not being paid £millions to run a huge bank.
He gambled and he lost. And worse still, he continued to gamble, throwing good money after bad.
He is scum.
And you know what's really scary. He is not only a multi-millionaire, but the company he entirely f
ked is still (by way of the pension scheme) paying him more than half a million a year.Yet Stephen Hester (who most analysts think is doing a good job) is harassed about his pay.
His pension is <0.5million/year.
Ofcourse Hester is harrassed about his pay, 80% government owned!
jimslops said:
Rocksteadyeddie said:
I have no time for Fred Goodwin at all. He has been convicted of no crime, and yet is stripped of his Knighthood. Banana republic politics anyone?
What is the crime then?He was honoured for services to banking and it was reputed. What else is there to be said?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff